It's quite the choice. Who are you?"There is a lot of speculation about what the Justice Department is doing, what’s it not doing, what our theories are and what our theories aren’t, and there will continue to be that speculation. That’s because a central tenet of the way in which the Justice Department investigates and a central tenet of the rule of law is that we do not do our investigations in public."That is, implicitly, a criticism of the January 6th Committee. They're doing their "investigation" in public — straining to make it as public as possible and presenting it to the nation as an ongoing TV show — and pontificating about the rule of law. Garland discreetly prods us to notice his disapproval.
As for the conversation pit article, I marveled over the details of the article, then puzzled over the first sentence:
Betcha Dela Cruz-Atabug didn’t want a normal living room.Are they betting me that someone named Dela didn't want a normal living room, or is her first name Betcha? I don't know, but...
Rock Herzog, an interior designer in Los Angeles... said that the conversation pit is the perfect metaphor for the milieu of the times.
“Not only are we physically separated from one another, we are culturally, socially and politically separated from each other, and the end to that separateness is not in sight... So the conversation pit is this fantasy of ‘what would it be like if we were together again and having a good time?’”
पोस्ट्स
८० टिप्पण्या:
Neither. I don't follow the fads. I have my own mind.
In a world of laws there would be increasing evidence.
This doesn't align with your survey construct, but IMHO you really need to offer a 3rd choice here -- something like "Neither."
it's Obvious, that Trump NEEDS to be prosecuted! Let's see a short list of his crimes
setting up a private server, to avoid FOIA requests
..downloading TOP SECRET State Dept documents to that private server
..'wiping' (like, with a cloth) the data on the server, in order to destroy evidence
profiting (in the millions) through his sons criminal dealings with foreign governments
blackmailing foreign governments, that were investigating his sons crimes
RAPING staff members
Sexually assaulting small children
i could go on and on (and on (and on (and on))), but you get the gist
A more honest AG would explain that the bigger difference between any action even the Department of Just-us(Democrats) would take and the J6 show trial is that if a DC judge threw out all of Trump's defenses there's still no way to avoid having Trump's defense team cross-examine the DOJ witnesses or point out where the DOJ is selectively quoting from documents. Publicity has little to do with the impropriety of their investigation.
Garland is saying "That's not us. That's not how we do things. So get off my back." There's a whiff of bureaucratic snobbery in his words, but I don't think it's a real criticism of the committee.
I never had a "conversation pit." If they're back, I won't notice or care. I guess the Times is "aspirational." Young people living in crowded studio apartments or forced to live with umpteen roommates in Brooklyn dream of being able to have a "conversation pit."
Most of what is published on newspaper websites and another forms of news aggregation and internet presence is pre-news or proto-news. Something that isn't news yet it might sometime eventually become news but it hasn't become news yet but we're supposed to get excited because it might be news one day. Rabbit holes are just escape hatches for the insecure and depressed.
Inflation and conversation pits?
We’ve been reliving the 60’s and we’re moving into the 70’s.
Shorter Garland: if Trump were guilty of a crime, there wouldn’t be a January 6 Committee.
Congress investigates to make the winds; the Justice Department quietly investigates to judge the winds.
Two regular features of the New York Times in this era:
1) Articles about imminent indictments of Trump and that if they don't come, democracy is in peril.
2) Why are so many of us feeling isolated? (us being NY Times readers).
I think one has something to do with the other.
The pits!
"The conversation pit"
Is this where Belzar had to snarfle the Garthok? "Pit" anything is not an appealing noun. "The conversation pit" sounds like the Eagles Hotel California. You can check out of this conversation pit anytime you like, but you can never leave.
It's not an either/or choice, but an and. The entire Jan 6 committee is a conversation pit with only a select few who sit there and go round and round.
Never heard of a conversation pit. Must be a coastal/coastie thing. So I only identify with the Just-us Department story. However, why is it not about Hunter Biden?
There is no doubt in my mind that Trump will be both indicted and convicted by a DC jury. A DC jury would convict Trump even if there was no evidence. Biden won 95% of the DC vote.
To their minds, Trump is too much of a threat to their thing. And if he got back in as POTUS, he would crack back viciously on the Dems.
Not sure Garland is prodding us to note his disapproval. Seems just as likely he's signaling that his Department does have an ongoing formal process on Trump and January 6th.
"Garland discreetly prods us to notice his disapproval."
Garland discreetly fakes his phony disapproval, to earn kudos from nice women who like things done "by the book." Wouldn't want to appear unfair. That would be terrible! DoJ follows the law! Scrupulously! Unpartisanly! Seriously!
It sounds less like a criticism of the Jan. 6 committee and more like a dog whistle to the people screaming for him to prosecute Trump already, dammit: "Don't worry: indictment to follow."
Very interesting! If you Google/Duckduckgo "Betcha Dela Cruz-Atabug" or "Dela Cruz-Atabug" you find that same article on several different. Even more interesting is that you find no internet presence for "Betcha Dela Cruz-Atabug" or anyone named "Dela Cruz-Atabug", which is unusual for people under a certain age. Methinks something fishy is going on at the NYT.
Lisa monaco is who decides not gauletier garland
I'd rather read a book.
I was having a couple of beers with some friends yesterday. They think they are sensible moderates, but they still watch CNN/MSNBC, read the NYT (and try to work that fact into conversations), and despise Trump (cause he's a racist, corrupt, homophobe.) They are carefully following the J6 committee, think Josh Hawley is a traitor and will be defeated for reelection, and that Liz Cheney should run for president. I don't argue with them about any of this, in fact I try to avoid politics with them and when it comes up I just keep my mouth shut and listen. And it occurred to me yesterday that the J6 committee is for people like them. The true believers who need some red meat. The people that just can't wrap their heads around the fact that the Democrat Party has no interest in supporting the working and middle classes and that Trump's policies and positions are what the Democrats supported before Bill Clinton sold them out in the 90s for some of that sweet, sweet CCP graft.
Anyway, I don't think they will prosecute Trump because his lawyers get discovery and there is that pesky cross-examination thing, along with calling witnesses for the defense. Though I did see an article earlier today about an effort to get lawyers who worked for Trump disbarred. An obvious attempt to intimidate people from representing him.
California is pushing Covid restrictions again that will keep its citizens separated. Is the article a rebuke of Democrat Presidential hopeful Gov. Newsom?
I decided to actively ignore the output of the J6 committee when the R contingent appointed by R leadership was dismissed by Pelosi and replaced by 2 active anti-Trump Rs.
Judging by headlines, even the WSJ Editorial Board has been taken in by this political show masquerading as a Congressional hearing.
I hear Garland saying, "Wait a minute, guys! If we really charge DJT with anything, there will be discovery and stuff. We really don't want that."
I've always thought Conversation Pits would be tiresome to clean, especially the ones with shag carpet.
Shouldn't a "conversation pit" have burnt orange shag rug? They always did in the past.
A conversation pit is a great idea. It'll give young adults a place to sit while they text to each other. They'll even be able to personally judge reactions to their texts in real time.
Rock Herzog, an interior designer in Los Angeles... said that the conversation pit is the perfect metaphor for the milieu of the times.
The milieu of the times is classic, manipulative, cult-like milieu control. Perfect segue from the propaganda and lies coming from the J6 committee and the controlled messages from Gov’t, Big Tech, and MSM coordination to the conversation pit.
Unlike Althouse’s open “you can talk about whatever you want” sunrise photography posts…the new conversation pit would be “you can talk about only what we tell you to talk about”.
They’d really be perfect for college campuses
"That’s because a central tenet of the way in which the Justice Department investigates and a central tenet of the rule of law is that we do not do our investigations in public."
I'm thinking Garland doesn't consider selective leaks to the WaPo and NYT to be "public."
Inflation at home, humiliation overseas, spiking oil prices, qnd now conversation pits. The seventies really are back.
Ron Winkleheimer at 8:24 AM
I don't think they will prosecute Trump because his lawyers get discovery
That is my thinking too.
The DOJ/FBI does not want respond to discovery about the FBI's infiltration and influence within the groups that invaded the Capitol building.
The DOJ/FBI does not want to admit in court that no contacts were found between those groups and any of Trump's close associates.
The DOJ/FBI does not want to admit that it did not use its intelligence about those groups to warn President Trump about those groups' plans to invade the Capitol Building.
And so forth and so on.
Because of such legal discovery, DOJ will not indict Trump.
I would think instead of conversation pits folks would be installing echo chambers….. untapped market opportunity.
I believe Garland is prompting us to realize that the DOJ is a different entity than the Congressional Committee and does investigations differently, not signaling his disapproval or approval. He’s explaining the DOJ’s policies. Also IMO it’s important for the public to have a heads up as to what occurred on Jan.6th, while at the same time the DOJ is investigating. We shouldn’t expect the DOJ to veer from its policies based on public opinion.
To their minds, Trump is too much of a threat to their thing. And if he got back in as POTUS, he would crack back viciously on the Dems.
-------
More importantly. Their hysterical base demands it, and a Trump reelection would be a repudiation of the political class.
I also think that they want to use it to attack desantis. The image of Trump being frogarched out of Mar a Lago while Florida troopers watch on won't help him with the GOP base.
Is the Althouse comments section a virtual conversation pit?
Personally, I prefer a fire pit.
This DOJ is the pits. Convergence.
IMHO you really need to offer a 3rd choice here
I was thinking I could use a bit more sleep.
The whole point of J6 and Cheney being on the committee is to destroy Trump.
Judging from the comments, I bet Betcha beat Merrick.
Even more interesting is that you find no internet presence for "Betcha Dela Cruz-Atabug" or anyone named "Dela Cruz-Atabug", which is unusual for people under a certain age.
Try "Betcha Dela Cruz," perhaps on a different search engine. Not everybody updates their accounts when they marry. I found her Facebook and Pinterest, but lost them because there are actually more than one Betcha Dela Cruz in the world.
I suspect she got her stuff from retailers who knew the Times story was coming and wanted to give it wider circulation to get more sales. Or maybe the Times syndicated the story itself. Betcha there was some collaboration between Betcha, the paper, and the store that worked out to the advantage of all three.
I voted for conversation pit. Anything to avoid Merrick Garland!
That photo makes Garland look like Chance the Gardener.
I only knew one family, in the eighties, that had a conversation pit. It was gradually abandoned and became a literal pit of unwanted stuff the kids threw there.
'Not only are we physically separated from one another, we are culturally, socially and politically separated from each other, and the end to that separateness is not in sight...'
Good.
I don't want to be next to freaks, weirdos, or communists, nor do I wish to associate with them.
"Is this where Belzar had to snarfle the Garthok? "Pit" anything is not an appealing noun. "The conversation pit" sounds like the Eagles Hotel California. You can check out of this conversation pit anytime you like, but you can never leave."
Ha ha.
I've been coming up with nicknames for dogs. We meet various dogs out on our walks and some of them inspire me somehow. There's Ollie the Cosmetologist and Gee Willikers and The Ghostmaster General, but I'm pre-inspired to call a pit bull The Conversation Pit.
For mr entire life, through 9 different houses, the conversation pit has always been the Kitchen table.
There is no doubt in my mind that Begley would acquit Trump of shooting someone on Fifth Avenue even if it were broadcast live on TV and he signed a confession. Just because you have no respect for the Rule of Law, don't assume nobody does.
Back to Bannon - how can you criticize the jury when, as you have said, the judge excluded all claimed defenses? You obviously wanted the jury to ignore the court's instructions. Again, your distain for the Rule of Law comes shining through.
Now I can dust off my circa-1983 conversation pit joke!
You could have a pit and use it for conversation and then, a few years later, the pendulum would swing and the new fad would be fireside chats or Sermons on the Mount.
As someone else wrote, the Dept. of Just Us…
What is being dished out in DC is pretty fucking far from justice.
The pendulum is swinging back to conversation pits and everyone is raven. Except poe little me.
"I've been coming up with nicknames for dogs. We meet various dogs out on our walks and some of them inspire me somehow. There's Ollie the Cosmetologist and Gee Willikers and The Ghostmaster General, but I'm pre-inspired to call a pit bull The Conversation Pit."
No Belzar!? Come on that's a great and unique name for a dog!
I was drawn to the third headline in that NYT screenshot. J6 committee presents one-sided evidence with neither question nor rebuttal. Conservative media responds with the obvious questions of relevance and fact that went unasked. To the NYT, this constitutes doubling down.
This poll is rigged!
Who doesn’t want to go back to 1972 and relive their glory days?
Blogger jim5301 said...
There is no doubt in my mind that Begley would acquit Trump of shooting someone on Fifth Avenue even if it were broadcast live on TV and he signed a confession. Just because you have no respect for the Rule of Law, don't assume nobody does.
Back to Bannon - how can you criticize the jury when, as you have said, the judge excluded all claimed defenses?
This is what the left considers "rule of law." The judge, a Trump appointee, probably figured that Bannon could not possibly get a fair trial in DC and decided to kick the whole mess up to the Appeals process.
jim1234 considers the acquittal of Sussmann by a jury of Hillary donors to be "The Rule of Law."
I remember where the rabbit holes are and just avoid them altogether. I don't go looking for them in Pravd......er.....The New York Times.
Michael K - "jim1234 considers the acquittal of Sussmann by a jury of Hillary donors to be "The Rule of Law."
Unlike you Michael K, I won't second guess a jury unless I was present for the entire trial -- heard the testimony, saw the witnesses, understood the instructions. I.e., I NEVER second guess a jury - are they sometimes wrong - sure. do they sometimes ignore the instructions and base their decision on improper factors - no doubt. But how can you tell whether that happened in a particular case unless you were there and saw and heard what the jury saw and heard?
GQ ran a story last year about Cocaine Chic, the brainchild of the same designer. NYT copies?
https://www.gq.com/story/cocaine-chic-design
Unlike you Michael K, I won't second guess a jury
Of course not. How did the Rittenhouse jury verdict impress you ? DC juries are notorious but only if you are not a lefty. Then thy are "The Rule of Law."
There is no doubt in my mind that Trump will be both indicted and convicted by a DC jury. A DC jury would convict Trump even if there was no evidence.
And I have no doubt that Trump would run for president from his jail cell. And might win!
Indicting and convicting him won't make him go away.
p.s. Would trump insist on a jury trial?
I'm one of the 2/3 to vote for the pit, not that I'll read either article, it being the Slimes and all.
When I got to the campus in '71, the new English building featured a big conversation pit in the middle of the main floor. It seemed very cool for a while but after a few years it was floored over. Probably a safety issue.
Oh--everybody go read Kunstler today. I disagree with him about a few items but he sees a lot of the picture clearly.
Times are not half as interesting now as they will be shortly.
Garland may be weak--but he's not stupid. On the other hand there are a lot of dopes on the January 6 Committee. Smart but venal = dope.
jim5301
Unlike you Michael K, I won't second guess a jury unless I was present for the entire trial -- heard the testimony, saw the witnesses, understood the instructions. I.e., I NEVER second guess a jury - are they sometimes wrong - sure.
Good news!
On this blog, jim5301 will not comment on any trial unless he was present for all of it.
Please, please prosecute a former president.
Next, release the names in Maxwells little black book…..
Did I really just need to explain that to a retired lawprof?
Chuck, is that you ? The Life Long Republican?
NYT brays for increasing pressure to prosecute Trump.
NYT is grooming prospective adults to play a submissive role on a casting couch evolved from the depths of a conversation pit.
The DOJ and FBI are, and have been for some time, political agencies run for the benefit of politicians. It is only under the stewardship of Holder and Garland that corruption has become rampant and shameless.
As was generally true of the Obots, Holder was much more adept a corruptocrat than Garland.
Garland's button men are too busy concealing the truth about 6 January by oppressing defendants to investigate Trump - which shouldn't take more that about 2 days anyway.
I dunno. I must have clicked the link after they changed the front page. I couldn't get past the picture of the Pope wearing ceremonial Native headgear. He is the leader of the Catholic Church. He should not don the symbols of another faith. What's next, a burka? A Heaven's Gate jumpsuit? If he hates his own job this much, he should quit.
Jim5301: "I NEVER second guess a jury."
Evidently, you have never been a trial lawyer. Jurors are often as unconcerned with facts as Democrats.
Hence, Biden's, "We choose truth over facts!" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1f4P0cI7M9U
Jim5301: "Just because you have no respect for the rule of law, don't assume nobody does."
Yes, remember when Democrat prosecutors nailed all those rioters in Portland, Minneapolis, etc.? And how about when the Democrat DOJ prosecuted Hillary for her bathroom server violations? Holder's non-prosecution for contempt of congress re his refusal to testify about fast and furious. Ignoring protesters outside Justices' house in violation of 18 USC Sec. 1507? Holding 6 January misdemeanants without bail?
Big Jim was, no doubt, at the forefront demanding the "rule of law" then. LOL!
Merrick Garland is an unctuous fraud running a grift for his sick, twisted daughter and her fucked-up criminal husband.
Everything in America is the pits, so why not?
jim5301 said...
There is no doubt in my mind that Begley would acquit Trump of shooting someone on Fifth Avenue even if it were broadcast live on TV and he signed a confession. Just because you have no respect for the Rule of Law, don't assume nobody does.
Back to Bannon - how can you criticize the jury when, as you have said, the judge excluded all claimed defenses? You obviously wanted the jury to ignore the court's instructions. Again, your distain for the Rule of Law comes shining through."
As for Bannon, you're right. A jury that isn't allowed to hear evidence from the defense is merely a grand jury indicting a ham sandwich.
Regarding Garland, he is now a political animal. He figures the Democrats are going to lose in November at least the House and J6 is going to get a whole lot uglier when the lift is shown on the Democrats. If it's ugly enough the DoJ and the FBI are going to be in a world of hurt. The kind of hurt they won't be able to recover from for quite awhile. Perhaps someone here can answer this question: can Eric Holder still be prosecuted for Competent of Congress? Hillary and Comey et all for their crimes?
Only Merrick Garland can fall down his rabbit hole and I recall the Conversation Pits added to the larger houses built in the 1980s stood empty while the Great Rooms blasted TV programs.
Two failures do not make for a valid choice. Speaking of which:
Assuming that Trump doesn’t get the nomination from his party in 2024 involves a leap of faith. After all, he’s grifted his way through every crisis he’s ever faced, from cheating to get into college to taxes dodged in the inheritance from his father, debts expunged through six bankruptcies, business failures eclipsed by his TV role as a supposed business genius, contractors stiffed, with allegations of sexual harassment or assault by at least 18 different women waved off.
The king may (or may not) be dethroned, but the autocratic vision inherent in his approach will remain in force.
Recall that Omar Little told his dying attacker lying on a Baltimore street in The Wire:
"Ayo, lesson here, Bey. You come at the king, you best not miss."
Chuck:
Congressional committees ARE SUPPOSED TO OPERATE IN PUBLIC! They are doing legislative work and governmental oversight.
**************
And which function is it performing re Jan 6th? Are they "overseeing" a Constitutional officer?
You pick:The increasing pressure on Garland to prosecute Trump.The return of the symbol of intimacy, the conversation pit.
I choose the NYT's is an intellectually vapid waste of time.
Your conference of status onto them and hope of joining their tribe is silly.
Good to know Trump is till POTUS. whatever happened to Joe Biden anyway?
The conversation pit looks like ancient Romans could be lying down and stuffing grapes into their mouths there.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा